Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Effingham public commenter urges tourism-fund reform after Wheat Penny request; council lets 4.1 die
Summary
Local business owner Michael Brummer asked the council to rethink how the Hotel/Motel tourism fund is used after applying for a Wheat Penny grant, citing a multi‑million‑dollar fund balance and urging clearer standards and transparency; council discussion followed and the motion on item 4.1 died for lack of a second.
Michael Brummer, founder of Midwest Ventures and Properties, told the City of Effingham Council he opposed moving forward with a tourism grant for his Wheat Penny business while urging clearer rules on how Hotel/Motel taxes are spent. Brummer said his businesses contribute about $10,000 a year in lodging taxes and said the tourism fund had a balance “more than $4,000,000” with roughly $1,700,000 in revenue in the most recent fiscal year. He said less than 1.7% of that revenue was being returned to local entities through the tourism advisory board and argued the current process lacked transparency and measurable standards.
“Tourism tax is generated solely through overnight stays in our community,” Brummer said. “Our residents haven't contributed a dime unless they booked an Airbnb or hotel room in the city limits.” He told the council he would prefer the city invest in local businesses only when the private partner commits a larger share of capital and when projects demonstrate out‑of‑market visitation.
Council members acknowledged Brummer’s concerns and used the discussion to review how tourism funds have been used. Commissioner Mueller said the presentation highlighted the need to “reevaluate” eligibility and measurements for tourism spending and suggested giving the tourism advisory board more authority. Other council members noted the fund has produced multi‑year surpluses and that some prior allocations — including an approximately $970,000 commitment to a convention center project — were significant drivers of past spending decisions.
Councilors debated whether to invest surplus fund balances or reduce the tax. Staff noted that some tourism revenue is restricted by grant terms and that the city retains a surplus that could be committed to other priorities if projects advance. When the body asked for a motion on item 4.1 (the Wheat Penny request), no second was offered and the motion died for lack of a second.
The council did not adopt a policy change during the meeting but several members said the budget process and the tourism advisory board’s standing authority are appropriate venues for setting clearer standards on eligibility, matching requirements and measurable visitation outcomes.
